RE: [ga] Funding denied

[JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I can only subscribe to this.
However, there is a little problem: you have to be accepted by your 
own constituency. If I am correct:

- ALAC is for the organisations of individual users such as ISOC 
Chapters, @large organisations, registrants associations
- NCDNHC is for non-profit organisations either using the Internet or 
supporting, advocating for users, civil society associations, etc. - 
BC are for commercial users
- GAC is for governmental users
- IPC is for trademark owners and consultants
- ISP is for ISPs
- gTLD for generic TLDs
- ccNSO is for ccTLDs having signed something with ICANN

and where do fit the others? What is the appeal capacity for denied 
Members? (I do not think this is in the mission of the ombudsman?) 
Where do National Internet Communities (including ccTLD, Gov, 
Business, ISPs, civil society, @large, etc.) fit?
Where do non ccNSO ccTLDs fit?

jfc






At 18:17 15/01/2007, George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > this status. From ICANN's point of view, it is a mailing list of
> > individuals
> > that have an interest in internet matters. However, there might be
>
> For the most part, the GA list is a cross constituency list that is
> open to anybody. There are certainly registrars, registries, business
> constituency members, non-commercial constituency, ALAC and probably
> members of the ISP and IP participating and/or lurking on the list. And
> even a few Board members read it (not that it has ever led them to vote
> properly, but that's a different issue).
>
> As such, there should never be direct funding for GA participants, as
> it's more proper for them to pay their own way or to receive funding
> from their constituency.
>
> Imagine if ICANN had to pay the way for Jeff Williams' "134K members"
> of "INEGroup"? :) ICANN's Budget would soar! Olympic-size stadiums
> would be needed to hold meetings! Although, perhaps most of those
> "members" would fit on the head of a pin, perhaps making travel costs
> affordable... ;)
>
> Troll jokes aside, perhaps this can be revisited in the future if/when
> the 3 "super constituencies" of the LSE report come into being. At that
> time it may be more appropriate to discuss what resources each of those
> 3 constituencies would have to assist its representatives from
> attending. However, in my opinion it would be better to pick locations
> that are cheaper for visitors to attend, and spending some resources on
> remote participation (WebEx, or other group conferencing with video).
> That might be the best of all possible worlds.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/